Cody Wilson successfully fired a .380 handgun that he built on a Stratasys Dimension 768 SST 3d printer. The handgun is ABS (the plastic used in Lego building blocks) except for a small nail used as a firing pin and a 6 ounce metal slug inserted into a pocket to meet the Undetectable Firearms Act requirements. It is a single-shot pistol and must be opened and re-loaded between shots. It is called the Liberator after the WWII single-shot pistol.

Wilson claims to have test-fired another barrel built the same way attached to an otherwise standard handgun. It lasted for 10 shots.

The printer Wilson used will run in the vicinity of $15,000 if purchased used on ebay. In speculation I’ll go into possible less expensive alternatives. The SST has an xy precision of +/- 0.2mm and a z precision of up to 0.05mm. I say “up to” as the vertical layering can be controlled. The smaller the layer the longer the printing time. It prints ABS, and can use ABS, PLA (another plastic which is biodegradable and can be dissolved in a Sodium Hydroxide solution), or SST (Soluble Support Structure, proprietary, uses hot water to dissolve) as a support system.

The SST uses support structure building as opposed to solid support. In other words it makes columns under overhanging parts to keep them in place instead of building a cube of which part is solidified while the rest acts as a packed powder base. The one remaining thing to note is that the SST can and will sustain a higher temperature chamber that is slightly below the melting temperature of the print material. This helps assembly in larger pieces as the layer to which the print is being added is close to ‘welding’ temperature instead of applying the hot material to a cold surface and risking voids.

Wilson used a final treatment process referred to as acetone polishing. The piece is exposed to warm acetone fumes for a few moments which smooths and polishes the ABS. It’s typically used to remove the ‘topographical’ lines in normal builds, but it also eliminates any fine detail of the original print. Acetone will dissolve ABS if applied directly and in sufficient quantity.

===
SPECULATION

First is alternative printers. Several of the more advanced “consumer” level printers will meet most of the specs of the SST for a lot less. For example, the Cubify (3d
systems) CubeX (aka Cube 2d Gen) with two heads meets the precision standards, and will run the buyer ~$3,750. Using two heads it can print the pieces in ABS while printing the support material in PLA. 3d Systems sells an ultrasound device and sodium hydroxide solution (3.5 molar strength, which is about optimum) for another ~$1400.

The CubeX uses a heated build platform and has an enclosed chamber. The chamber’s build temperature does not get as high as the SST. This can be remedied with home modifications, but the builder should recognize they’re home modifications that can violate the warranty.

The main issue with using the CubeX is that there might not be enough material in the feedstock cartridge to build all the pieces in one build cycle. There are two solutions: to do two runs, or to do yet another home modification that allows you to use a spool of thread. This latter option is common as the spool will run ~40% the cost of Cubify’s cartridges. (CubeX cartridge is $99 for ~ 750 grams of usable material). Spools cost vicinity $50 per kg.) Yet another alternative exists if you’re willing to download plans and build or purchase (for ~$399) a kit that will convert ABS and PLA pellets to filament. The cost then runs between $5 and $6 per kg.

Note this is assuming the liberator uses more than the ~750 grams of plastic of a single CubeX cartridge

The Really Dedicated builder who is able and willing to kit assemble the majority of the system can have a working dual headed device for less than $2000, and run off (assuming 1 kg per gun) a pistol for less than $10 each.

QUALITY and accuracy. Even with acetone smoothing the barrel is not going to have the tight tolerances of a standard pistol barrel. Nor will it have lands and grooves. It is a single shot “Saturday night special”. I’d not expect it to consistently hit a mansized target beyond ranges of 10 to 20 feet.

My speculation is that one “next iteration” will be some form of multi-shot. The simplest is some form of pepperpot - multiple barrels adjacent to each other, using a system that moves the firing pin from chamber to chamber. Revolvers are next most likely, and while I doubt some form of autoloader is doable I am not going to bet against it.

This is a gun that can be printed by anyone in the world and at this time never traced. Without the slug (which is a user option as the cad file just makes the pocket for it) the only thing that’ll set off a metal detector is the nail-firing pin and the bullets. Soon after use it can be dropped in a pail of acetone (nail polish) and dissolved. All a lab is going to be able to identify is that the pistol was plastic due to the ABS residue on the projectile. It’s a guarantee that it won’t be just honest and honorable people concerned about the government who make them.

I expect a great deal of consternation and furor at multiple levels up through international over this weapon. I have no idea how it’ll pan out, and in part it will depend on how and where the first few come to light. FWIW, my letter to various congressmen will recommend to let people make these, but finally put taggants in gunpowder. It’s pretty much the only way you’re going to trace these murder/assassination weapons, and with the horse out of the barn making them illegal is going to be, well … we’ve done so well at stopping porn and piracy, haven’t we?

Hey guys 3d metal printing is already a reality. What then? Of course for single shot we have had the zip gun for decades. A pipe and a nail will do in a crude way.
Added-EDIT
Work and legislation is called for but I’m not losing any sleep over this particular development. There are far better weapons that will 3d print with some engineering applied.

MIght as well outlaw CNC lathes and mills. Taggants in gunpowder only works as long as the taggants don’t change the explosive properties of the gunpowder, which is often metered out in sub grain measurements. This is a real issue since many of the taggants used for high explosives are themselves explosives. Also black powder is measured by volume while smokeless powder is measured by weight, so every unique combination of taggant has to result in an identical safe operation at the very least. The real test that that most reloaders won’t go for it unless they can be assured that each new unique blend of taggants in the powders can’t result in significant changes to muzzle velocity and trajectory for each reloading recipe they use.

No, it really doesn’t. The Swiss tag explosives, including blasting powders, but not smokeless or black powder propellants designed for reloading firearms.

While the small number of incidents using tagged versus untagged black powder may argue in favor of the effectiveness of taggants, only black powder used for blasting purposes is tagged in Switzerland. Black powder used for sport shooting is not tagged. Presumably, black powder used for sport would be easier to obtain than black powder used for blasting and may account for this discrepancy in numbers. In addition, the overall low number of incidents makes any generalizations about the effectiveness of taggants difficult. Despite the reported success of the taggant program in Switzerland, no other country has chosen to adopt taggants in its explosives industry.

…

As noted earlier, black and smokeless powders designed for shooting applications are not tagged in Switzerland.

CNC mills can’t make the barrel, and except for the “jewelry” level tabletops cost near or over 5 figures.

I don’t know why you believe this. People were boring rifle and shotgun barrels on manual lathes and mills long before CNC equipment became available. World War II was fought with firearms built on what would be primitive equipment by today’s standards. You can find used manual and CNC equipment up to the task on the used market for pretty cheap. Grizzly sells new lathes and mills up to basic gunsmithing tasks beginning at just a couple thousand dollars.

I don’t know why you believe this. People were boring rifle and shotgun barrels on manual lathes and mills long before CNC equipment became available. World War II was fought with firearms built on what would be primitive equipment by today’s standards. You can find used manual and CNC equipment up to the task on the used market for pretty cheap. Grizzly sells new lathes and mills up to basic gunsmithing tasks beginning at just a couple thousand dollars.

I retract about the CNCs - was referencing a shop with which I worked for a while and all the stuff was larger grade. (And there was a bit of snobbery about lightweight).

On the other hand I’m trying to figure out why you’re dismissing this weapon. It works. A complete neophyte can purchase the machines, download the file, and have a complete working Liberation within 24 hours. I get the impression you’re missing the point

This weapon - untraceable, mostly invisible to most detectors (excluding bullets), isn’t the result of years of refinement. It’s proof of concept. And oh by the way it’s more effective than the pistol with which Booth shot Lincoln.

I know you’re strongly against anything that restricts firearms in any way, shape, or form, but the majority of the public isn’t. And as I said in the page, if and when one or more of these get used we’ll see a reaction. I’d rather have a least restrictive path laid down than let panic and stupidity take over.

No, it really doesn’t. The Swiss tag explosives, including blasting powders, but not smokeless or black powder propellants designed for reloading firearms.

Try again.

They (the Swiss) tag explosives. The explosives don’t have problems with detonation. The Swiss presently have other means of controlling firearms, making ammunition powders an effort and expense with little gain.

As to the unsafe, there’s a lot of opinion from the NRA of how this, that, and the other technique (melamine plastic, haptens, and isotopes) would be too expensive to implement, might foul weapons in use, could be found and removed by dedicated villains — all without a study or test showing such effects.

IN fact I rather loved the way the 1998 “Marking, Rendering Inert, and Licensing of Explosive Materials”, officially by the National Research Council but funded by the NRA, said isotopes would avoid all the problems, so we’d have to worry about decontaminating every site where explosives were used so as to avoid cross-contamination. Why do I think this is ridiculous? See DNA and fingerprint analysis from high traffic areas. The people who had to do the sorting would do so. “It’s too hard” is a cop-out.

Your first objection was that the taggants were volatile and would explode. I countered by pointing to others, and noted they’re in use by the Swiss. You once more slapped a blanket objection. I recognize your bias is against any controls at all. Unfortunately when you hold “all or nothing” stances they can wind up giving you nothing. I’d rather taggants than just making firearms or possession of ammunition illegal. Taggants are harder to make work but they beat the crap out of the other options.

I know you’re strongly against anything that restricts firearms in any way, shape, or form, but the majority of the public isn’t.

I’ve repeatedly said here that handguns, being involved in more than 80% of all firearms crime, need to be much more heavily regulated. I’ve even directed such comments directly to you.

In as much as you care about actually influencing the intentional homicide rate, yes. Handguns will always be more conducive to criminality, used far more often, more concealable and thus easier to sneak past society’s defenses. If you ban so called assault weapons you’ll just drive the smaller number of mass killers who use them back to the more efficient handguns, which they’re usually carrying anyway and using more often already. You’ll have done basically nothing to influence the intentional homicide rate and have handed the anti gun control crowd a powerful argument when the rate goes up again - that disarming law abiding citizens was demonstrably counter productive. Crack down on handguns and you stand a chance at actually effecting a positive change.

Here’s some comparative stats. It’s hard to argue against the US policy resulting in a lot more dead people. More than 80% of that though is handguns, which have always been the vast, vast majority of the problem at every level of gun crime. The best medium term answer for the US would be to try and move handguns into the NFA category that governs machineguns, SBRs and SBSs - require a $200 tax stamp and several months of ATF background check for every single transfer.

I don’t know if you’re just a fucking idiot with long term memory issues or a sniveling lying little piece of shit, and at this point I kind of don’t care, I’m tired of having my position misrepresented by your bitch ass.

I don’t know if you’re just a fucking idiot with long term memory issues or a sniveling lying little piece of shit, and at this point I kind of don’t care, I’m tired of having my position misrepresented by your bitch ass.

See, the thing is you have only one plan: ban all handguns. But you have no plan how to do it, it’s just a rant.

And the thing is, it looks dishonest.

First, because you sneered and weren’t interested in stopping a handgun - this handgun - because it’s not as well machined as others.

Second, because you are against every other possible solution except the total ban of handguns (except when you’re not). Everything else by anyone else pushed for more than one comment comes winds up with you tossing insults.

Third, because as you’ve been told before total handgun bans are politically impossible at this time. But you will not compromise.

I’d think you were just naive, except you are AGAINST ANYTHING THAT MIGHT WORK. If it might reduce the problem, you oppose it because it’s not a total ban of handguns.

I don’t think you’re an idiot. But I don’t think you’re naive, either. That leaves, in my opinion, one result. You look like a supporter of firearms who is using the extreme impossible action as a means of undercutting all possibilities. If it’ll work but isn’t the absolute and impossible, you deny and refute. And if that fails, you yell about how we should just ban all handguns because they’re the biggest. And by the way, call your opponent names.

That name calling you’re tossing around? Might want to look in a mirror.

They (the Swiss) tag explosives. The explosives don’t have problems with detonation. The Swiss presently have other means of controlling firearms, making ammunition powders an effort and expense with little gain.

As to the unsafe, there’s a lot of opinion from the NRA of how this, that, and the other technique (melamine plastic, haptens, and isotopes) would be too expensive to implement, might foul weapons in use, could be found and removed by dedicated villains — all without a study or test showing such effects.

IN fact I rather loved the way the 1998 “Marking, Rendering Inert, and Licensing of Explosive Materials”, officially by the National Research Council but funded by the NRA, …

It wasn’t funded by the National Rifle Association.

This study was supported by Contract No. TATF-96-17 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Treasury. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.

I have no idea why you feel it’s acceptable to make such baseless and erroneous assertions. The NRA made a stakeholder presentation, but stakeholder doesn’t mean what you apparently think it means. Being a firearms ownership advocacy group they had a stake in the outcome, but in no way did they fund the study.

Your first objection was that the taggants were volatile and would explode. I countered by pointing to others, and noted they’re in use by the Swiss. You once more slapped a blanket objection.

No, I simply pointed out that the Swiss comparison is faulty inasmuch as they don’t put taggants in reloading supplies, because they don’t. Therefore the idea that the Swiss experience has proved anything false with regards to reloading supplies, is itself a false claim. I’m all for carrying out further research, and if taggants can be introduced to reloading supplies safely and at a reasonable cost increase then by all means introduce them. What we should not do is tell or repeat lies about how successful they’ve been in places that, in actuality, haven’t mandated their use in reloading supplies, which is everywhere.

I also don’t understand this need gun control advocates have at nipping at the edges of society’s real problem. Assault weapons are used in less than 3 percent of gun crimes, including homicides, and bombings kill even fewer in the US every year. The real, painfully obvious scourge is handguns. Anybody who actually cares about effecting real change, who cares about spending what little political capital they have wisely, will focus first and foremost on restricting access to handguns. This piecemeal, milquetoast approach of focusing on the outliers first is basically the least effective approach possible and makes no sense.

See, the thing is you have only one plan: ban all handguns. But you have no plan how to do it, it’s just a rant.

And the thing is, it looks dishonest.

It may look dishonest to you, but you’re the one who’s made several raw assertions in this thread that have been demonstrably shown to be untrue, and the odds against this being accidental are steadily mounting. I don’t know if it’s the same mentality that thinks focusing on the smallest fringes of the problem is a good strategy, but you can’t be an effective advocate for a cause while saying damn the facts.